Question: Do Utah courts utilize corpus delicti rules in criminal cases?
Traditional Corpus Delicti Rule
Under traditional corpus delicti rules used by Utah courts, a prosecutor in a criminal case generally cannot introduce evidence of a confession made by a defendant unless the prosecutor can first present evidence that: the injury or harm specified for the crime has occurred; and that the injury or harm was caused by some person’s criminal conduct. The corpus delicti rule thus requires corroboration of the defendant’s out-of-court confession before that confession can be presented as evidence in court. Once the confession is corroborated under corpus delicti, the confession can then be used to prove that the defendant is the person who committed the crime.
The purpose of the rule has traditionally been viewed as preventing innocent persons from being wrongfully convicted on the basis of a false confession. But many courts have acknowledged that the rule likely has also allowed guilty people to go free.
Overturning Corpus Delicti
The Utah Supreme Court abandoned corpus delicti in Mauchley (2003 UT 10), replacing it instead with a “trustworthiness” standard for corroboration of confessions. The Court determined that the traditional corpus delicti rule was anachronistic, did not protect innocent defendant’s who falsely confessed to actual crimes, inadequately protected the innocent because of the rule’s focus on the crime rather than the confession, and often worked to hinder justice by allowing self-confessed criminals to go free.
The Problem of Stare Decisis
In abandoning corpus delicti, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the doctrine of stare decisis placed a substantial burden on the party seeking to have prior case precedent overruled. Nevertheless, the court determined that the rule was no longer justified, given various constitutional safeguards now in place to prevent coerced false confessions (e.g. requiring the giving of Miranda warnings and extending the right to counsel to include criminal interrogations).
Trustworthiness Standard for Corroboration
To meet the new corroboration rule, the Court declared that a prosecutor need only present evidence that the confession is trustworthy. This evidence need not include any independent evidence that a crime occurred, as had been required under the former corpus delicti rule. Instead, the statement’s trustworthiness can be demonstrated by evidence that may include the following:
- evidence as to the spontaneity of the statement;
- the absence of deception, trick, threats, or promises to obtain the statement;
- the defendant’s positive physical and mental condition, including age, education, and experience; and
- the presence of an attorney when the statement is given.
Finding a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney
If you are the subject of any criminal investigation, it can be vital that you not make any statements to police (or anyone else) regarding the alleged crime without first consulting with an experienced criminal attorney. Because the bar for admissibility under the trustworthiness rule is much lower, there is a heightened risk that criminal confessions may serve as the means of convicting a person.
Contact us today to arrange for a confidential consultation.
